Game of Thrones 2019

[-jk]

Great thread on Twitter talking about just this from Daniel Silvermint - https://twitter.com/dsilvermint/stat...261136896?s=21

In short he says stories are either told by "plotters" or "pantsers." Plotters create a detailed outline to start with and then fill in the details as the story evolves. JK Rowling is a great example of a plotter; she had the whole arc of the HP novels plotted before she wrote the first one, which is why the plot points largely fit together so neatly. ...

Nice concept.

Personally, though, I think JK Rowling was more a "pantser" - way too much stuff just happened to show up when convenient (c.f., deus ex machina). JRR Tolkien was the best fantasy-world plotter from the modern age!

-jk

[Udaman]

Wait, Tyrion and Jon had it WORSE than the girl abused by her brother and sold into a rapey-kind of marriage who then led her people out of the desert? Jon was shunned by Catelyn and Tyrion’s family hated him (sans Jaime) but of those three, she is the only one whose life experience remotely qualifies them to understand how the strong abuse the weak. Unclear how anyone could arrive at a separate conclusion there based on what we saw Dany go through.

Sorry for the confusion. What I meant is that all the other characters were born into "royalty." Jon was a "bastard," sneered upon and treated like a second class citizen. Tyrion was a dwarf and hated by people from the moment he was born. That was the point I was getting at. They know what it's like to be the common man. the person without the lineage forward.

[bjornolf]

Sorry for the confusion. What I meant is that all the other characters were born into "royalty." Jon was a "bastard," sneered upon and treated like a second class citizen. Tyrion was a dwarf and hated by people from the moment he was born. That was the point I was getting at. They know what it's like to be the common man. the person without the lineage forward.

And remember, all dwarfs are bastards in their father’s eyes.

Funny, Jon is no longer a bastard, but Tyrion will always be a dwarf.

[alteran]

And remember, all dwarfs are bastards in their father’s eyes.

Funny, Jon is no longer a bastard, but Tyrion will always be a dwarf.

Maybe he should hook up with Tormund and get himself some giant’s milk. Worked for Mr. Giantsbane!

[JasonEvans]

I'd advise JE and others who think the burning of King's Landing was not believable to try to come up with historical examples in real wars when people very intentionally attacked and destroyed civilians targets, including examples perpetrated by a side we (justifiably) view as the "good guys".

I'm confused by your statement. In order to prove that what Dany did was not in character you want us to come up with real world examples of the same kind of thing happening?

Ummm, ok. I can't come up with any. Does that mean I win the argument?

And, to be clear, the problem we have is not that it happened but that it was not "earned" based on Dayn's history and what we know about her character so far. They have tried to force her into being something different the past few episodes than what she has been throughout the rest of the series. Sure, there are a few examples here or there of her choosing a bit too much violence, but nothing anywhere close to "I win! The war is over! I have finally achieved what my lifelong goal has been! Well, that means this is the perfect time to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians who present no threat to me, who have never done me any harm, and who I now rule as their queen." That last part cannot be stressed enough... she just friend her own citizens/subjects.

-Jason "there is a reason The Bells is the lowest rated episode in the entire history of the series when it comes to critical and fan reviews" Evans

[Wander]

I'm confused by your statement. In order to prove that what Dany did was not in character you want us to come up with real world examples of the same kind of thing happening?

Ummm, ok. I can't come up with any. Does that mean I win the argument?

You can't think of any examples in real wars where someone decided to lay waste to a civilian target?

[bundabergdevil]

You can't think of any examples in real wars where someone decided to lay waste to a civilian target?

I thought the answer was "most of them". Well, most of them have significant civilian casualties (collateral damage), fewer specifically tried to lay waste to civilian targets for some objective (but still plenty of examples).

Slate has an article up apparently by a military strategist on Dany's scorched earth approach. Another interesting perspective.

[cato]

I thought the answer was "most of them". Well, most of them have significant civilian casualties (collateral damage), fewer specifically tried to lay waste to civilian targets for some objective (but still plenty of examples).

Slate has an article up apparently by a military strategist on Dany's scorched earth approach. Another interesting perspective.

Heck, some crusaders sacked Constantinople just because. The sacking of King’s Landing may be the most realistic thing that has happened this season.

[fidel]

I'm confused by your statement. In order to prove that what Dany did was not in character you want us to come up with real world examples of the same kind of thing happening?

Ummm, ok. I can't come up with any. Does that mean I win the argument?

And, to be clear, the problem we have is not that it happened but that it was not "earned" based on Dayn's history and what we know about her character so far. They have tried to force her into being something different the past few episodes than what she has been throughout the rest of the series. Sure, there are a few examples here or there of her choosing a bit too much violence, but nothing anywhere close to "I win! The war is over! I have finally achieved what my lifelong goal has been! Well, that means this is the perfect time to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians who present no threat to me, who have never done me any harm, and who I now rule as their queen." That last part cannot be stressed enough... she just friend her own citizens/subjects.

-Jason "there is a reason The Bells is the lowest rated episode in the entire history of the series when it comes to critical and fan reviews" Evans

here's one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombin...n_World_War_II

edit: I should say its a bit of a mixed bag whether it was purely directed at civilian targets. However, it was seen as an effort to demoralize the enemy. Similar to Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

[alteran]

here's one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombin...n_World_War_II

edit: I should say its a bit of a mixed bag whether it was purely directed at civilian targets. However, it was seen as an effort to demoralize the enemy. Similar to Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

These examples, of course, were undertaken against enemies who refused to surrender, which isn’t the case here.

[Bostondevil]

Heck, some crusaders sacked Constantinople just because. The sacking of King’s Landing may be the most realistic thing that has happened this season.

My second son maintains that Enrico Dandolo was one of the worst human beings who ever lived.

[BLPOG]

here's one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombin...n_World_War_II

edit: I should say its a bit of a mixed bag whether it was purely directed at civilian targets. However, it was seen as an effort to demoralize the enemy. Similar to Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

In fairness to Jason, I think he misunderstood the point that was being made, as the thrust of Wander's comment was directed at plausibility of the *continued attack on the city/civilians* versus the plausibility of Daenerys' state of mind/behavior given prior events, which are related but not exactly the same. The crowd that thinks the events were implausible are focused on Daenerys herself and her ostensible switch from "good" to "bad."

Whereas those of us who always thought Daenerys was bad think this episode was not only totally in keeping with her character, but also ameliorates a couple seasons of borderline awful writing with respect to her scenes.

By the way, I think the only time Daenerys did not react to not getting her way with her full-on murder mode was when she exiled Jorah. Given that she knew him so long, had an emotional bond, etc, that's not exactly a great argument for her having a level head, or compassion, or not being exceedingly violent and authoritarian. Maybe a second example would be not immediately murdering Tyrion, but she certainly considered that and it's a pretty darn low bar, which sort of makes it more supportive of the narrative that she is a callous, violent nutjob.

The fact that Daenerys had a cutesy friendship with Missandei does not absolve her of all the other stuff she did (as it appeared the writers were trying to imply to viewers for years).

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I am no history buff, but I paid pretty close attention in class. I can't recall a single instance of an aspiring sovereign using a dragon to lay waste to a capital city.

[alteran]

Heck, some crusaders sacked Constantinople just because. The sacking of King’s Landing may be the most realistic thing that has happened this season.

This makes sense with the troops, a point no one has disputed.

I’m not sure there’s a lot of cases historically of leaders destroying a city they were desperate to take AFTER it had surrendered, by conscious choice.

But this is ultimately besides the point.

(Cato, the rest of this is speaking to the thread here, not anything you wrote.)

Game of Thrones is entertainment, and, as such, follows the rules of entertainment. Charlie Brown doesn’t just kill all the Peanuts characters because sometimes in life people go crazy. And, if a cartoonist took it there, I don’t think a lot of people would be weighing in with, “yeah, well people DO go crazy, so it’s perfectly legit,” because, well, in the context of a cartoon, it’s friggin’ ridiculous.

Likewise, Harry Potter doesn’t cross Hogwarts at the end of the series and join Voldemort out of the blue because it’s edgy or something, not without strong antecedents in the previous movies. Because anyone with basic knowledge of entertainment conventions knows it drives audiences bananas when characters do essentially random things. It’s a flavor of Deus Ex Machina, the hallmark of horrible writing.

This isn’t quite that bad. As many have pointed out, there were some antecedents for ruthlessness and cruelty in Daenerys.

But there were more antecedents pointing the other way.

So many more, in fact, that the OVERWHELMING audience and critical response had been that the showrunners blew it. Catastrophically.

We can argue history. We can argue that madness works in random ways. But the bottom line is that the writer’s job is to make fictional characters act in ways that the audience can believe. And DnD lost the vast, vast majority of their audience on this one.

This is a total fail on that score. And in the context whether this was good writing and entertainment, it’s the only score that matters.

[fidel]

These examples, of course, were undertaken against enemies who refused to surrender, which isn’t the case here.

Agreed; however the question posted was:

I'd advise JE and others who think the burning of King's Landing was not believable to try to come up with historical examples in real wars when people very intentionally attacked and destroyed civilians targets, including examples perpetrated by a side we (justifiably) view as the "good guys".

[alteran]

Agreed; however the question posted was:

Oh, I thought we were discussing Game of Thrones, not war history about troops sometimes ransacking cities or people attacking civilians, or whatever.

Yes, troops sometimes ransack cities. People sometimes attack civilians. Point conceded.

[bundabergdevil]

We can argue history. We can argue that madness works in random ways. But the bottom line is that the writer’s job is to make fictional characters act in ways that the audience can believe. And DnD lost the vast, vast majority of their audience on this one.

This article summarizes the various arguments about Dany's decision, citing some thoughtful reviews. Worth a read, IMO. I found the section on whether Dany is actually mad or instead ruthless and rationale particularly compelling because I don't believe its a POV covered in thread.

I'm still firmly in the camp "her decision was unearned". There is plenty of show evidence that Dany is ruthless (against enemies), revenge-seeking, righteous, messianic, increasingly paranoid, feeling spurned by her dumba** nephew, etc. It's all been cited in this thread. None of it contravenes what the show presents as a core Dany purpose --- a desire to break chains, help people, and free the enslaved. We're hit over the head with it over and over. This belief and willingness to sacrifice herself for it is why Tyrion, Varys (for a bit), Jorah, Selmy, Grey Worm, Missandei, etc became so loyal. They thought she was different because her actions were different from any of the other kings and queens they (or we) had seen.

Look, I believe GRRM's intent is for Dany to become the mad queen. The structure of his books --- with each chapter devoted to a character POV --- offers a whole heck of a lot more insight into what characters think. But for show viewers, in S8E3 we see Dany sacrifice herself and her army to save humanity then are expected to pivot to Dany not "descending into madness" as her father did, but cannonball-ing into it with a hurried killing of Rhaegal and Missandei in between. So we go from saves all the people to kills all the people in 1 episode. Meanwhile, Stannis Baratheon gets four seasons for us to see him slowly sacrifice everything in the name of the throne...

[Lord Ash]

Game of Thrones v8.5 Patch Notes:

Scorpion accuracy -100%, reload speed - 500
Dragon evasion, durability, & firepower x 5000%
Khaleesi state of mind -9999999
Dothraki & Unsullied respawn rate = ∞
Jamie redemption questline reset to stage 0
Arya invincibility not a bug, working as intended

My kind of post

[El_Diablo]

This article summarizes the various arguments about Dany's decision, citing some thoughtful reviews. Worth a read, IMO. I found the section on whether Dany is actually mad or instead ruthless and rationale particularly compelling because I don't believe its a POV covered in thread.

I'm still firmly in the camp "her decision was unearned". There is plenty of show evidence that Dany is ruthless (against enemies), revenge-seeking, righteous, messianic, increasingly paranoid, feeling spurned by her dumba** nephew, etc. It's all been cited in this thread. None of it contravenes what the show presents as a core Dany purpose --- a desire to break chains, help people, and free the enslaved. We're hit over the head with it over and over. This belief and willingness to sacrifice herself for it is why Tyrion, Varys (for a bit), Jorah, Selmy, Grey Worm, Missandei, etc became so loyal. They thought she was different because her actions were different from any of the other kings and queens they (or we) had seen.

Look, I believe GRRM's intent is for Dany to become the mad queen. The structure of his books --- with each chapter devoted to a character POV --- offers a whole heck of a lot more insight into what characters think. But for show viewers, in S8E3 we see Dany sacrifice herself and her army to save humanity then are expected to pivot to Dany not "descending into madness" as her father did, but cannonball-ing into it with a hurried killing of Rhaegal and Missandei in between. So we go from saves all the people to kills all the people in 1 episode. Meanwhile, Stannis Baratheon gets four seasons for us to see him slowly sacrifice everything in the name of the throne...

I think pretty much everyone agrees that her ultimate descent into darkness was rushed / not presented well. I have been a very vocal critic of the writers of late and feel that this is yet another example of bad storytelling at the micro level (as writing that seems intent on preserving maximum shock value rather than laying things out in a more traditional manner).

But at the macro level, her descent is supported by numerous examples of cruelty and ruthlessness, including examples of burning “innocent” people alive. Yes, she has often shown restraint in checking those impulses, but increasingly that restraint has been rewarded with pain and suffering and loss. She will have a chance next episode to help fill in the gaps and reconcile her actions with some of the other aspects of her character that people like (her comments on the throne the night before are illustrative...hopefully the writers will flesh that line of thinking out).

[LegoBatman]

Game of Thrones v8.5 Patch Notes:

Scorpion accuracy -100%, reload speed - 500
Dragon evasion, durability, & firepower x 5000%
Khaleesi state of mind -9999999
Dothraki & Unsullied respawn rate = ∞
Jamie redemption questline reset to stage 0
Arya invincibility not a bug, working as intended

My kind of post

This is why you shouldn't test in production. If those updates had made it into v8.4, then Rhaegal and Missandei might still be alive.